Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus
CA Kansas · Feb 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Kansas
- Record ID
- landmark-development-group-llc-v-lonnie-lupardus-2026-02-13
- Observed outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, ruling that the appellant's arguments were waived due to reliance on nonexistent authority and failure to provide an adequate record.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment after determining that the pro se appellant relied on three nonexistent legal authorities. Because the appellant failed to provide valid legal support or a sufficient record to establish error, the court deemed his arguments waived and abandoned.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Edwards v. Scholtzs" to support that eviction terminated lease obligations; the court found no such Kansas authority and rejected the argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Wilson v. Gutschenritter" to argue lease obligations ceased after eviction; the court found no such Kansas caselaw and declined to rely on it.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a Johnson District Court bench trial judgment; affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The source does not name a tool; the hallucination is inferred from the nature of the citations.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.